guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:NieA7
N/Me Dessicator when changing an untested build, please remember to restart the votes. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 10:58, 1 August 2006 (CDT) :It was a pretty minor change (overall one off curses for a couple more in inspiration and soul reaping) with no differences to skills or usage - the build itself hasn't altered in intent or execution so a re-vote seemed excessive. It's a sufficiently minor change that it could be reverted if it was generally felt to not represent an improvement. --NieA7 17:59, 1 August 2006 (CDT) ::i think there was only one vote on that build anyways. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 18:03, 1 August 2006 (CDT) :::Even more reason not to chuck it - there are loads of builds hanging about because nobody's voted on them one way or another, why make that even worse than it has to be? --NieA7 18:11, 1 August 2006 (CDT) Underworld you might want to go, it's a lot of fun. you seem to be in europe, so we can't go together, but i'll be happy to teach you the builds. i've a 55 monk, a SS/Sv necro, a trapper ranger, so i can do most of the quick-n-easy builds for UW. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 11:08, 10 August 2006 (CDT) :Hmm, tempting. The only two characters I've got that could get there are a Mesmer and a Necromancer (my Monk's not ascended and the Ranger's not even out of Old Ascalon), but I'm definitely going to give it a try one day. Sorrow's Furnace too, never been in there but it's always sounded interesting. I guess we could go into the Underworld via the entrance in Lornar's pass, but that's practically a run all but itself ;) Be a useful way of testing how favour works but one hell of an effort. I managed to map all that area in one run coming up from Droknar with henchies, I don't intend to go back there if I can avoid it... --NieA7 11:20, 11 August 2006 (CDT) Your name Found out that it was not created banging your head on the keyboard. But still, I never got the reason for the writing of it anyway hehe. --Xeeron 14:50, 22 August 2006 (CDT) :NieA Under7 is a great anime, the weird way its written is but a small part of its charm ;) --NieA7 16:11, 22 August 2006 (CDT) ::It is definitly fun to watch. I love the "sitting on the roof" parts. --Xeeron 05:08, 23 August 2006 (CDT) :::What I like about it is how it veers between serious and outrageous with hardly any warning, yet it still all hangs together as a whole (like the hole NieA explodes in the roof at the end of the first episode). Parts of it rank as some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen (especially the second episode), but throughout the series it lightly touches on a whole range of interesting issues. There's not really many things I can think of that compare to it in the way it's designed, which makes it all the more interesting. I really like ABe's character designs as well, being easy on the eye never hurts. --NieA7 17:59, 23 August 2006 (CDT) Bow Range vs. Casting Range On even ground, when using a longbow you should move to it's max range (1.35) and fire and not 1.05 like a shortbow. The only reasons I can think of that you are experiencing this is that either you aren't on level ground when you fire or you have a bow that looks like a long bow but functions as another.--Vallen Frostweaver 11:05, 14 September 2006 (CDT) :Didn't get a chance to test this last night due to the update, and I'll be away until Tuesday. I'm pretty certain the Longbow is a Longbow (Ascalon Longbow of Charr Slaying from Louise Haup), but I'll have to check exactly what it does and when (ditto with spells). --NieA7 03:27, 15 September 2006 (CDT) ::I think the confusion we were having over bow range is due to this comment from the range page: ::Automatic path-finding mechanisms direct your character closer than the intented ranged action strictly requires to succeed, a behavior more noticeable in melee : the difference is estimated to rejoin the adjacent to target distance (innermost testing circle). ::Which, when translated to English, means that when out of your bow's range and you shoot a bow at an enemy you will walk to ~10% closer than the bow's max range before shooting. Which means that a shortbow fired this way seems closer than the aggro bubble and a recurve is at the aggro bubble when in fact you can then back up a few feet and still hit the target just the same making the ranges further than they appear due to the ~10% pathing mechanic. So the numbers on the range page reflect the maximum distance and not the pathing distance we are used to. Took me forever to figure out what it was trying to say. >.> ''Vallen Frostweaver'' 14:19, 6 October 2006 (CDT) :::Uh-huh, and absolutely speaking 10% of a longbow's range is larger than 10% of a shortbow's range, hence it looks worse than it really is the longer the maximum range of the bow. That makes sense, although it almost negates the point of using a ranged weapon in the first place. But yeah, definitely makes more sense now. --NieA7 04:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT) Takahata It looks like you came accross my Takahata image during your "Weaponsmith homogenisation program". It's important to remember when you're adding a +del tag you should check what links here. In this case the only thing it linked to was User:Xasxas256/Takahata, a page in my namespace. Just something to remember for next time, thanks. --Xasxas256 21:27, 9 October 2006 (CDT) :Sorry about that, never occured to me to check if people were using weaponsmith images elsewhere. I was standardising the templates used which broke the image link for Zingyao, hence "renaming" (what a clumsy process that is) the Takahata image to Zingyao.jpg. To save duplication of images why don't you repoint your Takahata? --NieA7 03:35, 10 October 2006 (CDT) mesmer crafted weapons why bother have a column for damage type when we know every single mesmer weapon deal Chaos damage? - 06:36, 10 October 2006 (CDT) :Because after Mesmer I moved onto Monk, which can do either Light (Smite) or Fire (the rest). I imagine that Elementalist weapons are much the same. I agree it's a bit silly for just Mesmer, but I'd rather be consistent across all the references even if it leads to redundant data in one. Plus it gives us some degree of future proofing in case new Mesmer weapons do some other kind of damage. --NieA7 06:50, 10 October 2006 (CDT) Unfavored to testing If you want your build out of "unfavored" stub it, change some things and then re-submit it. OR declare the votes invalid and archive them then start a new vote.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 09:59, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :I appreciate you trying to help NieA7, but I don't believe circumventing the system is the right way to go about business. Not to mention any action like that is observable from browsing the history. --Ufelder 10:03, 23 October 2006 (CDT) ::Umm it's perfectly acceptable especially since the build got BS votes.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 10:05, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :::So two wrongs make a right? Appealing on GuildWiki talk:Build vetting procedure is probably as good as it gets, as NieA7 has already done. Anything like what you suggest does nothing for your credibility. --Ufelder 10:12, 23 October 2006 (CDT) ::::There are no wrongs, just actions that are unfavorable.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 10:16, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :::::This is definitely the wrong way. Rather try to go to the talk pages of those who votes unfavored and try to get them to change their votes, you have good arguments for that. --Xeeron 10:26, 23 October 2006 (CDT) :I'm not going to change it myself because as far as I'm concerned the skills and attributes are already optimal. If you look at the archive I've already re-started the vote once, if I did it again I can't help but think it'd set a precedent for an author simply putting their build up for a vote time and again until it gets through. The thing that annoys me about it is that it's currently slapped with "The general consensus among users of GuildWiki is that this build is not viable.", when the general consensus is nothing of the sort. In fact there's no indication that any of the unfavoured voters even tried the build (if his user page is up to date Rapta doesn't even have a Necromancer) - all their comments revolve exclusively around another build that's only partly related. If those votes can be removed for being inappropriate then great, if not then so be it, although that it can happen seems to indicate there's something wrong with the vetting procedure. --NieA7 10:09, 23 October 2006 (CDT) Well testing and voting are encouraged not required, sadly. Also most people have a pvp slot for w/e.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 10:14, 23 October 2006 (CDT) Build Untested category oops Woops. Don't know why I thought that the Wells Support build was PvP but then neither is the Splinter Destruction build. I only put it up there as it was the only build I had that was looking like it was about to be voted favored/unfavored (had 2 favored votes). Now that I look at it the votes have all been removed and now 1 vote against it that hasn't tried it. =/ So much for putting up a build that should go through relatively fast on the build page voting. I'll update my Ranger list today and see if I can find a PvP one that will go through somewhat fast and replace my Splinter Destruction on there with it (it can go up another time).-- ''Vallen Frostweaver'' 09:44, 29 November 2006 (CST) :I only changed it because the Wells build (the one you aced) hadn't been approved/voted down, whereas you left N/Me Discordant (which had been voted unfavoured) in the list. I know your build isn't meant for PvP, but I didn't want to remove it altogether so I just swapped it round. After that somebody else changed the PvE/PvP/Team bit from being a comment in the code to being visible on the page, which made the whole thing a bit of a nonsense unfortunately. :As for stupid votes, don't get me started. Check out Build talk:N/Me Barbed Ineptitude - two nonsensical votes (nothing dying in an Alliance Battle? Fast Casting being more useful than innate energy management?) and one with no comment at all and bang, a build that's got me 80 easy Jadeite Shard is voted down. And that's not to mention the farce that is the Build:N/any Dedicated Minion Master debacle. Ah well, such is life. --NieA7 10:14, 29 November 2006 (CST) ::Ick, I see what you mean. I'm running into similar things. But, I changed it out for another PvP build and all is well... for the moment. >.> -- ''Vallen Frostweaver'' 11:10, 29 November 2006 (CST) Staffs From dictionary.com: :staff pl. staves or staffs for 6–8 :6. a stick, pole, or rod for aid in walking or climbing, for use as a weapon, etc. :7. a rod or wand serving as a symbol of office or authority, as a crozier, baton, truncheon, or mace. :8. a pole on which a flag is hung or displayed. Note that I did have to edit that copy'n'paste a bit so don't take my word for it, go to the source. :) --Rainith 22:50, 16 December 2006 (CST) :...to believe it and looks it up in his own printed dictionary ... Oh nuts. Fine, "staffs" is a word >.< Ho hum, guess I should make sure I can speak the language myself before I go around correcting others. I still think it sounds a bit weird though. I've been through most the unique and crafted weapon tables and I've been changing it to "staves" where it wasn't that already, if nothing else I'd like to enforce the consistency I've arbitrarily introduced :p --NieA7 06:49, 17 December 2006 (CST) "guru" You say: "just because some random fool spouts some nonsense on a forum is no reason for one admin here to start turning things on their head without any warning - three fools are no more foolish than one." I say: "God yes." I will refrain from commenting on that thread because you cover every point with the appropriate disdain. -- Oblio (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2006 (CST) :Thanks for that :) With hindsight I think perhaps I was a little too disdainful, but I was deeply irritated at the time that it could take moths of flogging for something (build or policy) to be accepted on the wiki, only for stuff to vanish in a matter of minutes thanks to one post on some other site. Anyway, since then I've gone on to propose GuildWiki:Build Split, in the hope that both PvP and PvE players can be kept happy - any and all comments you may give there will be greatly appreciated! --NieA7 11:38, 19 December 2006 (CST) ::Thanks for the note, I did see your article, and while I think it's a little vague at just how we approach our solution in points (I agree with idea whole-heartedly). I just had my final exam today, though, so I didn't have the time to make too many posts. I'll think on it. I'll try to post before I'm gone for a month, cheers! And... Merry Christmas. Cyrogenic 00:29, 20 December 2006 (CST) :::Well, I'm not sure what talk thread you guys are referring to, but it sounds like the same thing that happened here. I'm getting kind of frustrated. I'm totally with you on the build split suggestion. I had a similar idea recently about splitting builds between 'professional' and 'casual' which is almost the same thing. But more and more recently I've realized how big of a difference there is between PvP builds and PvE builds, and I'm so sick of people judging PvE builds by their own personal PvP-influenced standards. However, the build I linked to is an RA build, but Skuld even seems to judge that from a perspective other than RA, as shown by his comments on the talk page. I almost want to say that RA builds should go with the PvE builds. I know it doesn't really make sense to split there, it does seem like thats where the big jump is between casual and professional level of play, between RA and TA. :::Anyway, I am with you on your split proposal and will leave some comments there. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Who do we need to convince in order to accomplish this? I also have some ideas for improving the submission and vetting process, but haven't had time to write them up. So perhaps once the split is done it will be easier to accomplish improvements, since I think part of the reason we had difficulty reaching consensus before is that we had 2 groups of people who wanted the build section to be 2 different things, and this proposal would split those groups so they could each accomplish their goals. Besides, it makes a lot of sense to have the builds split by play type. Even though we already have categories, everyone just goes into the untested section and looks at builds in general, but it would make a lot more sense to only look at the builds for the play type you want. -- BrianG 08:49, 20 December 2006 (CST) ::::Hi Brian, thanks for your support. What you say makes a lot of sense. Right now I think the best thing we can do is get the split policy approved. Nobody's really arguing about it apart from a couple of die-hards, but others are getting distracted and starting to talk about what to do with the PvE builds after they're split off. I think it'd be better to get the split done so the PvP guys can go off and play with themselves without trying to get PvP criteria bolted on to PvE stuff. Once the split is finished we can revisit the topic of vetting, hopefully in a somewhat calmer atmosphere. --NieA7 17:20, 20 December 2006 (CST) :::::No problem. I really really do think the PvE section can be improved, but the split has to happen so improvement debates don't degenerate into arguments. The other way to make improvements easier is to propose individual solutions to problems rather than trying to get everyone to agree to different people's one big proposal (like last time). The problem now is to just get this split to happen, but I'm not sure how to help do that since it looks like that talk page is turning into a mess as well. :/ Is there an admin we can talk to about this idea? -- BrianG 17:36, 20 December 2006 (CST) ::::::I've got an idea to tidy things up, I'll do it tomorrow morning and see how it goes. Fingers crossed. --NieA7 18:12, 20 December 2006 (CST) Restarting indent. Some minor feedback regarding the revised proposal: 1. I'm not that experienced in this area, but are you certain that 2 namespaces need to be created? Couldn't the same goal be achieved by using different categories and changing the links on the front of the builds page? I'm not opposed to separate namespaces, but it might require more work, so I'm just curious. 2. What happens to RA builds? It seems right now that many RA builds are mistreated the same way as PvE builds, and judged by the wrong standards. With no monk to count on, its very different from TA and GvG, and more similar to PvE in that self sufficiency is a bit more important. It also seems to get the same type of scorn from more experienced players, and attracts casual players more. Since RA builds would not be able to be evaluated using the "documenting the top guilds" methods, they may get left out in the cold. It really makes more sense for them to be evaluated the same way as PvE builds. I know it doesn't exactly fit your current proposal, but I really think the builds should be split into "Professional" and "Casual" sections of the website, as follows: Professional Builds: GvG Builds (evaluated by top guild analysis as discussed) TA Team Builds (only tested, successful team builds, no 'drafts', evaluated in whatever method the TA players think is best) HA Team Builds (I don't know anything about this, but whatever works for them) Casual Builds: Standard PvE builds PvE Farming or Solo Builds RA Builds (evaluation method for all these would stay the same but with improvements to be determined) This really seems to make the split at the right place, but its not as simple to describe as 'PvP or PvE'. What do you think? -- BrianG 15:20, 21 December 2006 (CST) :Hey, sorry for the delay but it's been hectic with Christmas coming up. :#Technically yes, you could do the same thing with categories, however if you go through the builds we currently have I reckon at least 50% are mis-categorised, and worse than that most new builds that go up have no categories at all. We're asking for trouble if we simply force more categories onto people - better to make it as non-ambiguous as possible. :#Personally I don't really see the point of hosting Random Arena builds - I doubt there's anything that works in RA that doesn't work in PvE or some other form of PvP, better to let people sift through the other builds. RA is just a bit of light PvP fun anyway. I like splitting stuff on PvE and PvP as it's a definite, concrete split along lines that the game has already set out - if we start following our own criteria it's just more stuff to document and confuse new contributors. If that means we lose RA builds, then personally I don't think it'd be all that bad. --NieA7 15:04, 24 December 2006 (CST) More on the builds issue... You seem to be interested in the discussion, so I thought I'd point this out to you. It's a bit like your "build split" idea, I guess, though in a different direction: link to my comment. Basically, I'm thinking "why not document a wide range of builds and then just label some as 'really good' and logically talk about the advantages and weaknesses of all of them, rather than just making over-the-top claims in every build page and throwing out any builds that don't pass muster"? I think taking away the flat good/bad vote would do a lot to make our discussion of builds more sensible and realistic. — 130.58 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2006 (CST) :Thanks for the heads up, it looks like a good idea to me - I just wonder if people could agree enough to make an "objective" assessment of the build. If they can then I think it'd work very well. --NieA7 04:22, 22 December 2006 (CST) Your Elite Skills Table I really like how you have your elite skills laid out, would it be alright for me to copy your coding on that, I would state ur name as credit of course. --FloatingLakes 03:11, 25 December 2006 (CST) :Yeah, course you can :) Copy it from User:NieA7/Siva Kazna, I've spaced that one out nicely in the code. --NieA7 05:20, 25 December 2006 (CST) ::Thanks a bunch, I've gotten started on my first two characters, check em out if you'd like. I made them a seperate page from clicking on my character's name. Side Note: You have the Skill: Boon of Signets. (works fine in greyscale, but not in colored) This skill was renamed to Scribe's Insight, just thought you might wanna know. Anyway thanks again, I think this looks great. --FloatingLakes 07:52, 25 December 2006 (CST) :::Thanks for letting me know about the name change, I did those tables before Nightfall came out and haven't really touched them since then - there's probably a couple more like that lurking about. Your character pages are looking good, much better than mine. I really should put some more effort into them, but when I get on the wiki I end up getting my knickers in a twist about the build section or weaponsmiths instead x.x --NieA7 08:09, 26 December 2006 (CST) Comment on known facts of your user page Hey, there is a well-used blood line you know. Orders, Blood is Power, etc. So you have death necros, curse necros and blood necros. That about covers it no? :) Sorry for messing up on your user page, I realized any comments should go here. NightAngel 07:41, 26 December 2006 (CST) :Meh, it was a personal reflection. Only place I've seen people asking for non-MM Necros in PvE are very high end areas like the Tombs or FoW. for the other 95% of PvE, most folks don't seem to care. Which is annoying, as playing as a MM gets dull after a while. --NieA7 08:09, 26 December 2006 (CST) :: It is dull. The basic MM builds are very automated. heal minions, make minions, heal minions, make minions, run away from mad dwarf with axe, etc. That is why I use heroes for my basic MM needs. They do the job very well and never get tired :) I like the blood line myself for battery. You know, piling up 5 superiors and living life on the edge. It's exciting :) And people love when you give them +6 energy regeneration. If you want I'll give you my favorite battery build. Trust me, you'll be loved. :) NightAngel 11:33, 26 December 2006 (CST) :::NightAngel, if you like battery builds, check out my new idea at Build:N/D Mystic Blood Bonder, and let me know what you think. Hopefully people won't mind if I'm playing this build in PvE instead of MM, cause I have no interest in Death Magic at all really. -- BrianG 11:50, 26 December 2006 (CST) :::: It's a nice idea indeed. I'll miss Prot Spirit, which I usually run while keeping my health very low, but I'm sure there are other interesting things to use in Dervish skills. I'll try it soon, my necro has hardly arrived in Elona and has much to do. NightAngel 12:03, 26 December 2006 (CST) Fed up quote : "I'm interested, but I and, I imagine, most other people are pretty fed up". Bah, dont give up on that build split idea. I think it is a good one that has reasonable consensus. The problem is that it takes an admin to actually do the work (which means you have to get someone off their ass who is interested enough to spend time). That is why you have momentum issues. But as it is written right now, I think you have policy if you can get an admin to do the work. -- Oblio (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2007 (CST) :I'm still with you on this. What did you think of my suggestion to try to get this started using categories? You'll probably get less resistance from admins this way, and I don't think it will be that hard to get people to use the categories, especially if the front page is set up so that the build doesn't show up in any untested category unless it is specified as either PVP untested or PVE untested. This could be accomplished veru easily right now with everything so tidy. If things go well the namespace split can be revisited. You may also have an easier time convincing admins if you call a vote to demonstrate how much consensus you have. -- BrianG 12:30, 2 January 2007 (CST) Thanks for the support you two. I just find it kinda irritating that Split could initially be criticised for the policy part, then after that was removed for not having a policy part in the first place. Catch 22 - won't get done if people feel it won't achieve enough, won't get agreed on if it tries to do too much. Unfortunately as a new name space it requires more than "just" an admin, it needs someone with access to the guts of the system. As far as I can work out, at the moment that means User:Fyren. Their opinion of split is that it achieves nothing as it is not accompanied by any policy to come after it (GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds) - as it's them that will have to do the work behind this it seems very unlikely that it'll get done unless there's overwhelming support, which there isn't (and nor can I imagine there being). A vote wouldn't achieve anything much as votes here are considered non-binding unless they're unanimous (can't remember the policy, it's out there somewhere), and I'm sure that wouldn't happen. I've pushed Split in as many discussions and talk pages as I could find, but the problem seems to be that while nobody is rabidly against it, most people don't think it'll achieve anything much and therefore isn't worth thinking about. Add to that the general malaise over builds (which in the long run will only lead to them being removed entirely I imagine) and it looks to me to be an insoluble problem. I think what it really needs is for someone with the access to do it to simply recreate the builds section in their own image. Collective intelligence just means thinking down to the lowest common denominator (check out the talk page, and its history, for Build:W/E Starburst Warrior), there's enough people talking about the builds section to make it impossible to reach the holy grail of consensus. Trouble is if somebody actually did that then everybody would cry out for it being "un-wiki like". Probably me included, though not so much because of the whole wiki thing (see above re: collective intelligence) but more because doing something like that now would make many people's hours worth of contributions to the "debate" worthless. So basically either way we're stuck - consensus is not going to be reached, drastic action will (at least partly rightly) be decried. BrianG: I answered that a while back, but it was a good week or so after you posted so I don't blame you for missing it. Here's what I said: :#Technically yes, you could do the same thing with categories, however if you go through the builds we currently have I reckon at least 50% are mis-categorised, and worse than that most new builds that go up have no categories at all. We're asking for trouble if we simply force more categories onto people - better to make it as non-ambiguous as possible. :#Personally I don't really see the point of hosting Random Arena builds - I doubt there's anything that works in RA that doesn't work in PvE or some other form of PvP, better to let people sift through the other builds. RA is just a bit of light PvP fun anyway. I like splitting stuff on PvE and PvP as it's a definite, concrete split along lines that the game has already set out - if we start following our own criteria it's just more stuff to document and confuse new contributors. If that means we lose RA builds, then personally I don't think it'd be all that bad. --NieA7 18:45, 2 January 2007 (CST) ::Right, I believe I actually read that response but then with the holidays I neglected the thread for awhile. I think I just decided to restate the category suggestion, in light of the continued lack of support for the namespace split from admins (Karlos was one example) and also because due to the current tidy state of the untested section, the addition of categories to accomplish a split seems so easy I can almost touch it. :) ::As for your concern about mis-categorization, I think you're thinking about it from the wrong angle. All the problems with categorization that occur right now are only issues with the secondary categorization. You don't see people complaining that someone forgot to put the untested tag on a build, because if they did, it wouldn't be on the list. If, for example, the current untested category was replaced by two different untested categories for PvE and PvP, and the only way for a build to be submitted would be for it to be in that category, people will make sure to add it just like they do for untested currently. If people submit it to the wrong category, the users of that category would be quick to correct it, much like they currently are to make sure the builds that are favored or not favored go to the right place. If its a primary category, and the builds page is set up to keep the categories separate it will not be as difficult to maintain as it is for the optional secondary categories that people have difficulty with right now. Those categories are forgotten because they are not essential in order for the build to make it on the untested list. I agree with you that a namespace split would be ideal, but I just think the likelihood of actually achieving that in the wiki's slow moving policy consensus process is a lot less likely than achieving a category split. I'll gladly support either plan though, the functionality is whats important to me. -- BrianG 20:46, 2 January 2007 (CST) :::On a related note, I think another big reason why a category namesplit has a much better chance of succeeding is that users like us could actually contribute to completing all the required work. Whereas a namespace split requires us to dump all that work on probably one or 2 people's laps, so they are a lot more likely to start doubting whether it is worth all of the work involved. -- BrianG 20:52, 2 January 2007 (CST) In my opinion, the big advantage of the "split" is that alternative policies can be taken per build-type. If this is solved with categories or namespaces seems a little irrelevant to me as both have advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is to try to ensure the quality of builds for the PvP folks, the efficacy of the farming builds, and the creativitiy of the PvE builds. So both the "namespaces are hard" and "categories get misapplied" problems are soluble (site-admin gets off ass, or everyone pitches in when they can are the relevant solutions). Regardless, I see the split as a pathway to a better system (that is- multi-policy) so I really hope we can go forward with it in some fashion. Additionally, I find that Starburst Warriar discussion horrifying. -- Oblio (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2007 (CST)